Every once in a while, I am asked what I “make.” A hack day might require it, or a conference might ask me to describe “what I make” so it can go on my name tag.
I’m always uncomfortable with it. I’m uncomfortable with any culture that encourages you take on an entire identity, rather than to express a facet of your own identity (“maker,” rather than “someone who makes things”). But I have much deeper concerns.
An identity built around making things—of being “a maker”—pervades technology culture. There’s a widespread idea that “People who make things are simply different [read: better] than those who don’t.”
Currently, 43 million American workers have no paid sick leave. For them, an illness or the illness of a loved one comes with the risk of losing wages, or worse, their jobs. One would think that Obama’s renewed vigor on paid family leave should be extremely attractive to anti-choice activists, with their love of large families.
Why should policies that support families be a top priority for anti-choice activists? Having a child in this country is remarkably pricey—and this is why a majority of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so. According to a 2004 Guttmacher Institute survey, 73 percent of women who have an abortion say they made that choice because they could not afford to raise a child. Of those women, 28 percent said that they could not afford childcare, with another 23 percent of respondents saying that they could not afford to provide a child the basic needs of life. The average cost of raising one child is now $245,000 dollars. In 31 states, daycare alone costs more than college.
Essentially, proponents for the March for Life, and others who don’t believe in the right to choose, have forced women between a rock and a hard place: demonized for having a perfectly safe and legal procedure, but given absolutely no aid if she chooses to carry to term. Implementing policies that value families—like paid family leave—would be the true pro-family thing to do. Restricting a woman’s right to abortion while opposing the ways that would allow her take care of herself and her child proves that anti-choicers don’t care about families, they care about control over women’s bodies—and women’s lives.
According to the criminal complaint filed on Sunday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the two men — Cherno Njie, 57, and Papa Faal, 46 — separately left the United States last month to travel to the Gambia. Once there, they allegedly joined with another 8 to 12 co-conspirators as part of an attempt to launch a coup against Gambia President Yayah Jammeh. Both Njie and Faal hold dual U.S. and Gambian citizenship.
Not only that, but it has been illegal for a very long time.
Both men are charged with violating the Neutrality Act, a 1794 law that makes it illegal for an American to prepare an attack on a country the U.S. is at peace with, as well as arming themselves in order to violate that law. The last time the law was invoked was in 2007, when 10 men were accused of attempting to overthrow the government of Laos. The charges in the Laos case were later dropped.
With human error crashes reduced by software that automatically stops or slows the car, the number of broken bodies and cars will be reduced. The number of deaths will be reduced. Your insurance premiums will be (theoretically) reduced.
And that means the need for my services as a personal injury attorney will be reduced. (Likewise reduced will be the need for trauma health teams and emergency rooms, not to mention car body shops.)
Has anyone ever cheered being put out of business? I am. Because I drive, too.
Friends talk about cancer and other physical maladies more easily than about psychological afflictions. Breasts might draw blushes, but brains are unmentionable. These questions are rarely heard: “How’s your depression these days?” “What improvements do you notice now that you have treatment for your ADD?” “Do you find your manic episodes are less intense now that you are on medication?” “What does depression feel like?” “Is the counseling helpful?” A much smaller circle of friends than those who’d fed us during cancer now asked guarded questions. No one ever showed up at our door with a meal.
[By popular request (i.e. at least one person), here are some thoughts* I jotted down on Facebook earlier today, partly in response to articles on NPR and Vox. Edited to correct spelling/grammar/formatting only.]
In a nutshell, the prosecutor presented exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, lobbed softball questions at the prospective defendant, and did just about everything he could to soft-pedal the case—given that the grand jury is supposed to be the time when the prosecutor presents a one-sided, self-serving narrative of the case in order to secure a conviction, I’m inclined to call bullshit on the whole thing.
A few other points:
1. Double jeopardy does not attach at the grand jury stage, so there is no legal reason why another grand jury couldn’t meet and indict Wilson. He is not “exonerated,” nor is he “not guilty” in a legal sense. In just about any other criminal proceeding, the prosecutor would be explaining that to us, instead of the other way around. Continue reading →
If money is “speech” in an electoral context, what about during the course of governance?
Could direct payment of cash, or some other thing of value, to an official in exchange for some official action, or forbearance from some official action, be construed as a very convincing argument that is protected by the First Amendment?
To give an example, suppose two people have separate meetings with an official regarding a pending application for, say, a building permit. The first person is a resident of a neighborhood that adjoins the property on which the proposed project will be built. That person explains to the official that the project will cause substantial noise pollution at all hours of the day and night, will depress property values to a significant degree, and will cause all of the residents of the neighborhood to develop a non-fatal condition that causes them to grow additional heads that emit flatulence from their mouths, which will cause unemployment problems.
Like this, but I guess with more farts.
The second person meets with the official and explains that the briefcase in his hand has $1 million in cash that will belong to the official if the permit is issued. Continue reading →
Corporations are “persons,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court and various political and media figures.
Corporations (and other artificial business entities) have certain rights under the Constitution, a matter upon which the major disagreement is the extent and breadth of said protections.
Corporations operating in a market economy seek advantages and dominant positions over competitors, with the aim of maximizing profits.
Corporations sometimes embark on campaigns to improve their own products, services, or value to customer; lower prices; or gain other advantages in local, regional, national, and transnational markets. The effect of such campaigns is, at times, the bankruptcy or closure of rival businesses.
In some cases described in #4, the rival business ceases to exist.
Businesses may intend to drive a competitor out of business, but at a minimum, they embark on business campaigns with the knowledge that closure of a rival business is likely to result.
In jurisdictions that define murder as intentionally causing the death of another person, is a business in this situation guilty of murder? In jurisdictions that define manslaughter as knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causing the death of another person, would that statute apply?
Just a thought I had. Texas defines criminal homicide (murder and manslaughter) as involving the death of an “individual,” and defines “individual” as a “human being,” Tex. Pen. Code §§ 19.01(a), 1.07(a)(26), so corporations here are probably safe. I can’t speak for other states, though. Discuss.
When a teacher is accused of inappropriate relations with a student, we as a society have a tendency to react differently depending on who occupies which position on the victim/perpetrator scale. Let me be abundantly clear here that sexual relationships between high school teachers and their students are bad. Unequivocally, uniformly bad, mmmkay? We tend to uniformly condemn male perpetrators who allegedly prey on anyone, long before the trial even starts. When the alleged perpetrator is a woman, though, we are sometimes less certain how to respond.
More than anything else, I want to smack that reporter in the face until he admits that he does not work for TMZ.
I don’t know what went on between Sarah Jones and her alleged, unnamed victim (justifiably unnamed because he’s a minor). Prosecutors in Kenton County, Kentucky say they have e-mails and other correspondence that proves the existence of a sexual relationship sometime between October and December 2011. Jones denies any inappropriate relationship. So does the alleged victim, or so we hear. Interestingly, joining the chorus of support for Jones is the alleged victim’s family. Whatever is going on in this case, it is getting interesting.
The twist in this case, at least culturally-speaking, is this:
(1) Sarah Jones is kind of a slamming hottie, particularly when she is all done up in her cheerleader garb. Your typical high school boy, again, culturally speaking, would have rather clear feelings about that. That would not justify a relationship in any way at all, because even a horny kid is still just a kid. The complication for the boy is that a great many people might be tempted not to view him as that much of a victim. This puts the kid in the untenable position of being a victim who is expected, in some circles, to be proud of his victimization. At times, this makes cases like these very difficult to prosecute. At other times, it could make prosecutors very eager to go after such a case, based on an assumption that the victim will not want to talk about it. Or will want to talk about it. If we could just deal with the case based on its particular facts, wouldn’t it be a great world?
(2) Sarah Jones is kind of a slamming hottie, particularly when she is all done up in her cheerleader garb. Some circles of our society (see the TODAY video above) may view her hotness and her choice of skimpy garb as evidence of her guilt, whether they realize it or not. The fact that Sarah Jones once earned supplemental income as a cheerleader has exactly zero to do with the question of her guilt or innocence. But damn if we don’t view that as somehow suspect. Here’s what would tend to go towards proving her guilt: (a) a confession; (b) direct evidence of sexual contact between her and the alleged victim, in the form of DNA, photographs, overt written or recorded references, or eyewitness testimony (which usually comes from one of the two parties to the relationship); or (c) indirect evidence, in the form of cell phone records, sightings of the two in public, the defendant’s car at the alleged victim’s house at 3:00 a.m., and so forth. Here’s what would not tend to go towards proving her guilt: (a) being a cheerleader; (b) wearing short skirts and skimpy tops; (c) getting paid to wear short skirts and skimpy tops; (d) being a young, hot high school teacher who also works as a cheerleader.
If she did it, she should go to jail. If she didn’t, everyone shut up about the cheerleader outfit. Actually, either way, everyone shut up about the cheerleader outfit.
Possibly the best mug shot in the history of law enforcement (a fact that was irrelevant to the question of her guilt.)
It might be tempting to think that women get some sort of….not free…but easier pass in cases like this. Debra LaFave only got house arrest and probation, for example, for her tryst with a 14 year-old. This is not the whole story. Remember that for every convicted female perpetrator that gets a seemingly light sentence, there is a male victim that isn’t really viewed as a victim. This is because of two cultural stereotypes: (a) dudes want to do the nasty, and (b) girls are delicate flowers who can’t really hurt us. That may turn out a lighter prison sentence for one female perpetrator, but the rest of humanity–male, female, trans*, and so forth–is worse off for it. It involves negative stereotypes on both sides, but the one against women (that they can’t really hurt men) easily feeds into the stereotype that they can’t really do many things. Then the dudes step in to do things for them.
What I am really saying in that last paragraph is, if you try to use this as an example of how men are the real victims in society, I will mock you. Mercilessly. Possibly using gay porn. Because I know you’d hate that. (Or would you???)
Photo credits: ‘Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones after an NFL game on Sept. 3, 2009, in Cincinnati,’ AP Photo/David Kohl [Fair use], via CBS News; ‘Lafave’ by FL DOC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Wednesday morning hypothetical:![Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones after an NFL game on Sept. 3, 2009, in Cincinnati. Credit: AP Photo/David Kohl [Fair use]](http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/03/30/Bengals-Cheerleader-Sarah-Jones-02-Pic.jpg "Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones after an NFL game on Sept. 3, 2009, in Cincinnati. Credit: AP Photo/David Kohl [Fair use]")
!['Lafave' by FL DOC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALafave.jpg "'Lafave' by FL DOC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons")